Strictly speaking, in a word ‘NO’.

According to MHCLG (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government)

“Competent Person Scheme certificates are evidence but not conclusive evidence of compliance. In other words, the certificate is not a 100% guarantee of compliance”

Of course this then begs the question, if a legal document certifying work complies with Statutory, Regulatory and BSEN Best Practice guidance and doesn’t what in reality is the value of a then ‘worthless’ document?

Scheme certification on behalf of a scheme registrant is nothing more than an assumption that whoever carried out your project costing thousands of pounds will have done so competently although when such certification is read in context the text merely refers to an appliance and lining product and not to any other element of work carried out.

Of course, in cases of alleged malpractice and incompetent negligence these certificates are likely to be referred to, and here’s the worrying part: “Once issued, a certificate cannot be withdrawn or rescinded” in layman’s terms, if alleged malpractice, fraud and/or incompetent negligence has occurred and a certificate stating the exact opposite issued with virtually little information within lodged with a local authority it cannot be simply withdrawn or rescinded/altered, therefore how will that affect for instance a search on your property, a sale of your property or an insured loss occurring that generates a loss adjuster investigation? How and by what means would a culprit in such circumstances be held liable financially, what would be the method of recovery and/or how would any reinstatement of non-compliant work occur? 

Scheme certificates are handed out electronically like confetti, they are not a guarantee or do they represent the carrying out of competent and compliant work, this is nothing more than an assumption that the work carried out has met the perceived requirements stated, therefore unless the property owner/layperson is an industry expert they are wholly reliant upon several meaningless references on a certificate that refers to nothing more than a named appliance and lining product.

If a guarantee against defective and/or faulty workmanship is required it would be prudent for the property owner to have this in place prior to any work commencing and to verify this level of protection is not provided within the scope of a scheme certificate.

This of course then becomes a rather complex conundrum with differing information suddenly coming to light during a property sale or insurance claim that starts to shine a light on all aspects of the work carried out, what elements were notifiable, who is ultimately liable for any loss, damage, negligence, unauthorised building work, authority permissions, party wall contraventions, lack of contractual obligation, failure to provide copies of both PL and PI insurances and so on, the list is long with the property owner responsible for employing due diligence in appointing a verifiably competent person/business. 

Therefore, if you are the owner of one of the many hundreds of thousands of space heating wood burning appliances installed yearly in the UK by a scheme member where an electronic certificate has been issued at completion of a project via the scheme your contractor is registered with it will suggest the work carried out “should” meet the requirements of not only Approved Document J of the Building Regulations but also the requirements within the following regulatory documents:

Approved Document A (Structures)
Approved Document B (Fire Safety)
Approved Document F (Ventilation)
Approved Document L (Conservation of fuel and power)
Approved Document O (Overheating)
Approved Document 7 (Material and workmanship)

Notwithstanding a glut of supporting British Standards such as BSEN15287, BS8303, BS1207, BSEN5440 and many others.

It is worth noting, the person/business you employ will be most likely self-employed and not an employee of any scheme organisation, therefore schemes themselves accept no liability or responsibility for the actions of their member, this means in cases of malpractice, incompetence and negligence unless in possession of a signed contract with clear contract set responsibilities you have little to no potential legal recall upon either the scheme registrant and most certainly not the scheme itself.

In such instances where a workmanship and/or compliance issue has arisen the scheme will advise you to entertain the very same scheme member/business to return to correct any negligent issues they have created irrespective they failed to carry out their responsibilities compliantly and/or safely with you having paid to have your project carried out correctly in the first place.

A gun is metaphorically held to your head by the scheme your contractor is registered with should you decide to complain formally to them, you will then be informed that if you do not concur with the very same individual or business returning who were responsible for the initial complaint the scheme in question will simply ‘wash their hands’ of this matter irrespective of your Consumer Rights, this is not entirely correct.

In a perfect world where for instance a gardener accidently pulls up a few prized rose bushes and who appears on the surface a decent enough person it would make sense and adhere to basic consumer law to allow him or her back to correct the error, in effect no one put at risk, no need to claim on anyone’s insurance policy and with the problem easily resolved, however, this is not the case when you allow someone into your home to carry out work of a dangerous and hazardous nature surrounding heat, fire, toxic and carcinogenic material that represents a direct risk to your property and those around you, your health, wellbeing and safety.

Given the existence of independently verified incompetence and negligent workmanship you are not legally obliged to allow anyone to return for the purpose of carrying out corrective works that you have already paid for on the premise you were receiving a competent service in the first place and that by doing so you consider your health, wellbeing and safety would be put at risk by allowing anyone proven to be incompetent and/or negligent back into your property.

You may also have had a false chimney breast erected (potential notifiable building work) and/or your fireplace opening extended or redesigned, again, notifiable structural/building work in conjunction with the installation of a gas, wood burning or electrical type appliance, this type of work if carried out by a scheme member is unlicensed and cannot be ‘signed off’ on a scheme certificate.

The existence of a new prefabricated chimney breast will necessitated compliance with the requirements of Regulation 3 and potentially Regulation 6. (Material change of use) where the footprint of a room with no chimney breast has been extended to accommodate such structures 

Notwithstanding such work notified to the building owner’s insurer to include this method of construction in their policy protection cover and of course recognition by the property owner that this type of work cannot be signed or passed off under any limited scheme certificate system.

Permission to carry this type of work out should therefore be sought and obtained from local authority Building Control and on a formal application thus protecting the building and providing an inarguable and qualified audit trail.

The following reference is taken from statutory instrument 2214 the Building regulations 2010


Regulation.3 and 6 of the Building Regulations in which 'flues in prefabricated chimney breasts' is either directly or indirectly referred to. (Or addressed)

The Meaning of building work
3.—(1) In these Regulations “building work” means-
(a) The erection or extension of a building;-
(b) The provision or extension of a controlled service or fitting in or in connection with a building;
(c) The material alteration of a building, or a controlled service or fitting, as mentioned in paragraph (2);
(d) Work required by regulation 6 (requirements relating to material change of use);
(e) the insertion of insulating material into the cavity wall of a building;
(f) work involving the underpinning of a building;
(g ) Work required by regulation 22 (requirements relating to a change of energy status);
(h) Work required by regulation 23 (requirements relating to thermal elements);
(i) Work required by regulation 28 (consequential improvements to energy performance).
(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—
(a) In a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or
(b) In a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.
(3) In paragraph (2) “relevant requirement” means any of the following applicable requirements of Schedule 1, namely—
Part A (structure)

paragraph B1 (means of warning and escape)
paragraph B3 (internal fire spread—structure)
paragraph B4 (external fire spread)
paragraph B5 (access and facilities for the fire service)

Unlicensed building and/or work of a structural nature may involve calculations and pre permission application from your local Building Control Body, if the property you own is listed or of local historical interest you may also require (no matter how unimportant the work may be perceived) authority permission from your conservation officer so that you do not contravene the Town & Country planning act. 

In a nutshell what does this mean to the property owner, what security and comfort is derived from a scheme certificate instead of an insurance backed local authority guarantee or standalone insurance backed workmanship insurance for instance?

Well, avoid placing or assuming levels of layperson driven expectation beyond the capability of those you intend employing unless you know more than them and the scope of their limitation, it’s easily done when you are confronted by someone quite willing to take advantage of any situation, has all the van badges and membership logos you could think of and speaks in terms you really don’t understand, unless properly advised and a duty of care initiated you have no guarantee whatsoever against either physical or administrative malpractice, negligence and/or incompetence in a very high risk environment that can have both a financial as well as emotional impact. 

Carryout prior research, contact not-for-profit organisations for unbiased advice, try to understand what the project will entail, demand to know the theory and design advice behind the proposed works, ask for refund and payment methods, insurance certification, cost and procedural details as well as a contract that recognises not just your rights but the method and procedure employed by the contractor.

Avoid your project careering into ‘self-drive’ mode resulting in you no longer having any control over the work you are paying for and the potential for a ‘car crash’ result that should this occur you then realise the rather worthless ‘certificate’ you assume will get you out of a pickle actually wont!.